linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 14/24] kbuild, firmware: imx: remove MODULE

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <874jqfvheo.fsf@esperi.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 20 Mar 2023 10:36:15 +0000
From:   Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@...cle.com>
To:     Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>
Cc:     mcgrof@...nel.org, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Hitomi Hasegawa <hasegawa-hitomi@...itsu.com>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/24] kbuild, firmware: imx: remove MODULE_LICENSE in
 non-modules

On 14 Mar 2023, Shawn Guo verbalised:

> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 02:10:49PM +0000, Nick Alcock wrote:
>> Since commit 8b41fc4454e ("kbuild: create modules.builtin without
>> Makefile.modbuiltin or tristate.conf"), MODULE_LICENSE declarations
>> are used to identify modules. As a consequence, uses of the macro
>> in non-modules will cause modprobe to misidentify their containing
>> object file as a module when it is not (false positives), and modprobe
>> might succeed rather than failing with a suitable error message.
>> 
>> So remove it in the files in this commit, none of which can be built as
>> modules.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@...cle.com>
>> Suggested-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
>
> Should I apply it as a fix for 6.3-rc with Cc stable tag, or can it be
> a material for -next?

This is currently built against -next, but Luis has indicated an intent
to pull the lot in via -rc3 (hence my scrambling to get the series
polished up for him, tags attached etc now). So, er... yes? :)

-- 
NULL && (void)